Posts by Laura Jones56

darksurfer4 said:I mean, space isn't actually empty; there’s no such thing as a true vacuum, since there's always some kind of gas or dust floating around somewhere...

Imagine nothingness? I suppose that just doesn't work.
Is a little bit of cosmic dust, stray gas, and space debris really enough to constitute absolute nothingness?

darksurfer4 said:It’s essentially like exploring deep space; I suppose that’s why we’ve managed to get a somewhat better grasp on our own planet through it.

Yeah, though most of it feels like chasing shadows in an empty room.

darksurfer4 said:It’s essentially the same thing, my friend. I was reading about our friend Sarah, and it seems like every single one of her struggles stems from relationship issues or constantly measuring herself against her mother—even though she hasn't actually mentioned her mother once. She basically confessed all of this during that infamous discussion regarding Biserka, that model whose son tracks exactly how many rolls of toilet paper they go through😁. I suppose she realized, or maybe just assumed I’d caught on that it’s all really just an Oedipal complex, and she ended up getting banned because

I suppose one really has to be careful these days about what they write, how they phrase things, when and where they post... just to avoid accidentally exposing some corner of their own psyche that isn't exactly something to be proud of, even if they aren't consciously aware of it themselves... or worse, stumbling into a self-diagnosis, heaven forbid.

Carl Rivera43 said:Those were the days, I suppose.

Good vibes, I guess...

darksurfer4 said:I mean, who even asked you? I suspect Carl Rivera43 isn't going to be particularly thrilled about this.😁

Well, what choice did I have? I felt compelled to step in myself, since it seems nobody else is willing to take the lead. 😬

What an absolute whirlwind!!!

Ugh, looks like I’ve wandered straight into the Verizon lounge.
Thanks for having me.

Just another Reddit thread—it’s practically a law at this point. 😬

Is it even possible to stay rational in those moments, or do you just completely spiral?
Some kind of metacognition, I suppose.
"Here we go, the anxiety is kicking in, this is such a drag, god dammit... who even does this..." You might even say it out loud to others, because honestly, the discomfort is just too much. You basically have to force yourself to break through that wall of paralysis.

ruggedraven36 said:

says:
Or what?

Everything.

Yeah.

jadeheron5 said:Explain yourself.

No.

jadeheron5 said:Well, I don't know about that... it feels more like empathy to me. Take that old saying, "man is a wolf to man"—it’s definitely a wise observation, right? But it’s the absolute opposite of being empathetic. To my mind, wisdom isn't required to be kind or empathetic; it's strictly about common sense and the lessons you pick up from life experience.

Not really.

I suppose there might be a way to link emotional and social intelligence to the concept of true wisdom, if one looks closely enough.

It’s all about aligning one's thoughts and actions with some sort of universal ideal of intellect and conduct. I suppose a wise man is simply someone who has compressed and deepened that alignment to its absolute limit—just enough, perhaps, to keep from slipping entirely into madness.

steelridge58 said:Whether things look a certain way regardless of our presence or entirely without us, we simply can't know for sure, because without a human mind there to perceive it, everything just remains a mystery.

Quincy:

If we start peeling back the layers—moving from the colors we see to the shapes we recognize, and finally down to the actual density and hardness of an object—we have to ask ourselves: what exactly constitutes matter? To put it in layman's terms—and I’m definitely not an expert here, so bear with me—I guess you could call it collective subjectivism, though I'm honestly not sure if there's a better way to frame it, when you consider something as simple and fundamental as the fact that grass is green.

According to Kant, everything we know as humans basically grows from two different roots: our raw senses and our reason.

Our senses basically hand us objects that have already been filtered through those prior frameworks of space and time, and then our intellect steps in to wrap all of that up under its own pure concepts, or what we call categories.
It’s funny how we think of them as separate things, but really, our raw sensitivity and our logical reasoning work hand in hand to build everything we actually experience.
Source
And what exactly would fit that thing you’re calling by that name, I guess?
It’s honestly kind of overwhelming when you stop to think about how we are essentially out here crafting the very dimension we call existence.

So, basically, both our sensory perception and our actual reasoning provide those built-in, a priori building blocks that make it possible for us to actually grasp anything at all—it’s like everything we experience has to pass through these internal filters first. When Kant talks about these fundamental, pre-set elements, he uses the term "form" to describe them.
Same source.

If we follow this line of reasoning, it would imply that the subject is actually what makes the object exist in the first place.
What exactly is it that explains why we can't ever truly grasp what reality looks like when we aren't looking at it? It’s that frustrating realization that we can’t step outside our own heads to see the world independent of our own perception.

So, could we perhaps say that the object is merely a projection of the subject?
Existence itself, viewed as a concept... when we talk about existing, at least for me, it feels as though it just means "to be perceived." It is only because someone else assigns existence to the perceived thing that it seems to hold weight.
I'll probably take another look at the source later.

ruggedraven36 said:The thing is, "reality independent of the subject" doesn't look like anything—because if it did, it would be looking like something to a subject. Hegel touches on this in the preface to his logic science: "When critical philosophy [Kant] views the relationship between these three terms [us, thought, and things] such that we place thought between ourselves and things—treating it as a sort of middle ground that actually separates us from things rather than connecting us to them—then we have to counter that thought with this simple observation: those very things that are supposed to exist outside of us, viewed through the lens of our thoughts, end up being nothing more than ideas themselves. And as completely undefined, they're just a single idea—so-called thing-in-itself—which are nothing but empty abstractions."

But then, saying it resembles "nothing" still sort of defines it, doesn't it? Without a subject, it seems to me that, well, nothing even exists. Without the subject, there is nothingness—it’s unknowable, an absolute end. Or rather, the end happens before that even begins. The subject is both the beginning and the end. Is everything we can ever discuss or think about—everything within our grasp—contained entirely within the subject's representation?

What Tut II is getting at here is actually the very reason I first decided to wander into this subforum in the first place. I found myself wondering if I could ever truly find out—or perhaps just grasp a small fragment of the truth. Well, I suppose I did learn something, though I ended up feeling more uncertain than I ever thought possible.
I suppose there’s an entire rabbit hole worth exploring there, though I haven't quite found the inclination to dive any deeper into the matter myself.
If there actually exists an objective reality that functions independently of the subject—meaning, I suppose, whether we as human beings are merely constructing the dimension we call "existence" out of thin air—one has to wonder what that reality would even look like. If we were to strip away our perception and work our way up from basic colors and shapes to the actual density and solidity of matter itself, what kind of landscape would be left?
To put it in layman's terms, I suppose one might call it collective subjectivism—though I’m not entirely sure there's a better way to phrase it—referring to that shared assumption we all hold, like the idea that grass is green.
I’ve heard people throw around these kinds of philosophical ideas—you know, the ones suggesting that something exists even if nobody is there to witness it, because if it didn't, you’d eventually just stumble into it, like kicking a stone with your eyes closed. It’s almost as if you perceive reality through touch when sight fails you. I guess it’s one of those ways to argue that existence isn't just about being seen, but about the inevitable friction of being present.
I suppose one has to wonder whether we ought to confine our definitions of subjective and objective strictly to the realm of human experience. Perhaps objectivity is simply that which remains logical, universal, and constant, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness it.
And is that perception truly an objective representation of a shared subject? I suppose one might wonder if such a thing even exists.
I’ve asked the same questions over and over, and I’ve poured over every single response, yet somehow, nothing seems to stick. .

frozengardener7 said:That saying reminds me of Sartre. And I certainly wouldn't call it a compliment.

I don't quite follow you, Apple.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Back in the 60s, they used to have this saying in Paris:
"You can do anything you want—as long as you do it with a smile"

Fair enough.

For years now—and it’s been quite a long time, if I’m being honest—the idea of purpose has started to feel more and more like a quaint little fairy tale, perhaps just a bit of idle folklore. It feels like food for Tantalus, though he isn't even hungry or thirsty; he just wants something else entirely. Something distant. Something perpetually elusive. Depending on how one defines purpose or perceives the world, you might stumble upon it, or maybe you'll miss it completely. Or perhaps, which seems like the most sophisticated way to look at it, one realizes that purpose isn't actually necessary to live—or rather, to live well. To live beautifully. It is such a strange, artificial construct that we somehow insist on tethering to what we call life. 🤷
The world itself, being neither good nor bad, but simply indifferent and cold, is actually the most brilliant stage of all; it serves as a gateway to absolute freedom. A place where you can truly do whatever you please.

Well, what she said was...
I suppose there’s a certain kind of internal wreckage that happens when you finally realize you were dead wrong about everything. It’s almost obvious, isn't it? That something inanimate isn't actually alive. 🤣 A stone doesn't possess emotions, after all. The world just exists as it is. Everything else—all those qualities we project onto things individually—is just us. Objectively speaking, we tend to attribute more to the world as a whole, and I guess we eventually reach a consensus and call that "truth." But in the end, maybe the world is nothing, or perhaps even less than that.

Patrick Williams8 said:Why does anyone feel the need to pick on someone else? Is it some kind of ego boost? Does it make them feel more secure?
Nobody goes out of their way to provoke me. It’s more that whenever I try to join in, people start giving me the cold shoulder... they don't want me around... they even get irritated... as if I've somehow forced my way into the group against everyone's will...

Perhaps it’s simply the thrill of dominating someone else's emotions, using that power to assert superiority and solidify one's standing in the social hierarchy. Ha.
It is also entirely possible that you just keep running into women who aren't compatible with you. I mean, it happens—it's like a guy winning the Powerball two weeks in a row. It's statistically unlikely, sure, but still possible. So, I guess you just keep looking. 🤷